What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

Christopher Hitchens (1949 - 2011) was an Anglo-American author and journalist. His books made him a prominent public intellectual and a staple of talk shows and lecture circuits. He was a columnist and literary critic at Vanity Fair, Slate, The Atlantic, World Affairs, The Nation, Free Inquiry and a variety of other media outlets. He was named one of the world's "Top 100 Public Intellectuals" by Foreign Policy and Britain's Prospect.

Peter gives his view on the Blair debate. (Which he hasn't watched or listened to.)

"I'm asked to comment on my brother's encounter (styled by some a 'debate') with Anthony Blair in Toronto, recently broadcast on BBC radio. Delighted as I am that the BBC (which can and often does reduce an important Parliamentary event to three jokey minutes) has taken to broadcasting debates on major issues on Radio 4, I do wonder whether the habit will last, and why this particular one made it so swiftly on to the air."

Anonymous sent a comment: "Tom, It seems that you have..."First, I think you make a good point and I agree. Since your comment is off topic, I regard it as a pm and I don't want to respond to it here. This leads to my point:If someone likes to send an off topic comment, don't post it here. Send me an email to give me a chance to respond. If we start an off topic discussion in the comment section, it doesn't seem fair to comments that aren't published. We would be breaking the "rules" only because I'm the blog owner.

Peter makes a point about vote rigging and then cherry-picks the Fry/Hitch debate to support his assertion. This assertion does not hold true for the Blair/Hitch debate of which the post was about, so why bring it up? It also suggests that only the secular side is capable of deception as the result only ever swings one way.

I feel very badly for Peter on some levels. In the article, he again refers to the Grand Rapids debate with big bro, and says that he sat on the steps because he could not hear. Maybe so, but the most important moment was when Christopher corrected his Kipling quote FROM MEMORY. That had to bruise the ego. And Christopher could not have planned in advance for that.

As siblings often do, it appears that there have been hurts inflicted on both sides. I hope that they can resolve things, it would be very sad if they can't. They are very different men, but in some important ways they are also quite alike.

Unlike what Peter has to say about Christopher's fans, I find it interesting that the brothers Hitchens are so different. I think it is good that Peter doesn't even try to ride the coat tails of his older brother. I have also known about Peter as long as I have known about The Hitch. I don't think any of us hate Peter more than we hate the Daily Mail.

Speaking of this debate, I submitted an opinion to the National Post which might be of interest. It was written in response to a gormless pronouncement by a Roman Catholic priest who cared to pulpit on what his points to Hitchens would have been if only he'd been in the shoes of Blair.

In the case of The Brothers Hitchens I supposed one could say that Peter does in fact have a point when he accuses his brother of repeating the same speech at every religion debate, because he does tend to rely on the same anecdotes, the celestial North Korea, The "That's just the B's" and so on. However they are all strikingly good arguments and helps point out the fallacies within every religion not just a single one. I suppose his debate with Lane Craig was a good illustration of this, especially since Craig tends to rely on simple arguments with hits of the absurd. Even though I despise the Daily Mail for its "HUMANITY SUCKS" take on tabloid journalism, I do find myself agreeing with Peter on some issues so it's incorrect to say I dislike the man. I do suspect that his column could sometimes put me to sleep in the middle of a threesome with Jessica Alba and Megan Fox.